This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 RICHARD GABALDON, JR., 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3 vs. No. 31,769 4 MARTHA MONTANO, 5 Respondent-Appellee. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Elizabeth Whitefield, District Judge 8 Elizabeth Stacy Vencill 9 Albuquerque, NM 10 for Appellants 11
James R. Beam 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellee 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 GARCIA, Judge. 162 Petitioner appeals an order of the distri ct court refusing to enter supplemental 1 findings of fact and conclusions of law. In our notice, we proposed to affirm. 2 Petitioner has responded to our proposal. Wehave considered his arguments and not 3 being persuaded, we affirm. 4 Petitioner’s docketing statement raised a number of issues arguing violation of 5 fundamental rights, violation of due proce ss, and district court abuse. We proposed 6 to affirm in large part because Petiti oner’s arguments were not clear and were 7 unsupported by relevant authorities. 8 Petitioner responds that our notice did not address the jurisdictional issue. 9 There was no jurisdictional issue raised in the docketing statement. Petitioner now 10 appears to be arguing that the issue in th is case was whether the district court had 11 jurisdiction to enter supplemental findings and conclusions based on the record. [MIO 12 4] We do not view this as a jurisdictional issue. The district court’s order does not 13 state that it lacked jurisdiction to enter fi ndings of fact and c onclusions of law. It 14 simply states that it will not do so. [DM RP 143] We believe that th e district court had 15 jurisdiction to enter the findings if it so de sired. However, simply because a district 16 court has jurisdiction to act does not mean that it must do so in any particular way. 17 See Sundance Mech. & Util. Corp. v. Atlas , 109 N.M. 683, 687, 789 P.2d 1250, 1254 18 (1990) (“This Court has repeatedly noted thatthe jurisdiction of a district court does 193 not depend on how the court decides a contested issue submitted to it; the test is 1 whether or not it had power to enter upon th e inquiry; not whether its conclusion . . . 2 was right or wrong.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Therefore, the 3 issue here is not whether the district court could act but whether it erred in refusing 4 to rule as Petitioner requested. 5 Petitioner contends that the district court erred in denying his motion “with 6 prejudice.” [MIO 6, DS 11, 12] He argues that such language canhave res judicata 7 effect in the future. We fail to see why. The “with prejudice” language is included 8 only in the order denying Petiti oner’s request for entry of supplemental findings and 9 conclusions. We view the “with prejudice” language as simply stating that the district 10 court will not entertain future motions for entry of supplemental findings and 11 conclusions based on prior hearings. We do not agree with Petitioner’s view of the 12 language such that he will no longer be able to bring up the record of prior 13 proceedings. There is nothing in the districtcourt’s order that can even remotely be 14 construed as prohibiting Petitioner from referri ng in the future to matters that are of 15 record in this case. 16 Petitioner argues that the di strict court should have made the oral findings of 17 the domestic violence commissioner a part of the written record. As we pointed out 18 in our notice, while it might be the better pr actice to have such findings in the written 194 record, those findings are nevertheless on th e record in this cas e. Likewise, while 1 written findings are more convenient for the c ourt and the parties, the failure to have 2 them does not rise to the level of a violati on of due process or fundamental rights. We 3 agree that judicial efficiency would be promoted by the written memorialization of 4 oral findings of fact. But, Petitioner ha s cited us no authorityand we know of none 5 that requires district court judges to take the most judicially efficient road or risk being 6 reversed by the appellate courts. 7 Petitioner’s attempt to distinguish the authorities upon which we relied for 8 general propositions is unpersuasive. T hose cases were cited for the general 9 proposition denoted in the parenthetical. They we re not cited for their similarity to this 10 particular case. Thus, any attempt by Petitioner to distinguish them on their facts is 11 unavailing. 12 Further, Petitioner accuses this Court of giving an advisory opinion in our 13 notice when we addressed the res judicata effect of the findings made by the domestic 14 violence commissioner in a pending criminal case. We did so because it appeared to 15 us that Petitioner’s complaint was that without those findings, Respondent could argue 16 in the criminal case that she was the vi ctim when the commissioner had already found 17 that they were both aggressors and both victims. This app eared to us in the nature of 18 a res judicata argument. We simply pointed out that such findings could not be used 195 to prohibit a criminal prosecution based on th e same facts and circumstances. We are 1 simply stating that if this is the reason that Petitioner wants the findings entered, it is 2 not persuasive. 3 Finally, Petitioner argues that the districtcourt was biased because of actions 4 that he contends evened the playing fi eld. [MIO 13] Petitioner has cited us no 5 authority in support of his contention that th e district court was biased because it took 6 actions perceived by one party to equalize the parties’ positions. As we pointed out 7 in our notice, simply because a district c ourt rules against a party does not mean that 8 it is biased. State v. Hernandez , 115 N.M. 6, 20, 846 P.2d 312, 326 (1993). Nor do 9 we believe that actions allowing the partie s to cool down where it is clear they are 10 jockeying for position establishes bias. 11 For the reasons stated herein and the no tice of proposed disposition, we affirm. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED

. 13

_______________________________ 14 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16

17 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 186 1 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 2